The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Annasopra · 05-04-2018 10:12PM

thee glitz wrote: »

If the proposed legislation was stricter than it is ie. not allowing for abortion for no reason, but dependent on an assessment of reasonability, then there would be more support for repeal, making it more likely that abortion would be made available where deemed 'required'. Instead, we see the case for abortion for any / no reason pushed as necessary to ensure that those who do reasonably need it have it available.

I'd like to see stricter proposed legislation than there is so that more people would be comfortable about voting to repeal, hope I've changed your opinion of me.

Has your stance changed on this? It seems to have moved from a position that you wanted an amendment specifically to allow abortion in cases of FFA, rape/incest, danger to womens lives to just legislation on that.

thee glitz · 05-04-2018 11:06PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

If the proposed legislation was stricter than it is ie. not allowing for abortion for no reason, but dependent on an assessment of reasonability, then there would be more support for repeal, making it more likely that abortion would be made available where deemed 'required'. Instead, we see the case for abortion for any / no reason pushed as necessary to ensure that those who do reasonably need it have it available.

I'd like to see stricter proposed legislation than there is so that more people would be comfortable about voting to repeal, hope I've changed your opinion of me.

Has your stance changed on this? It seems to have moved from a position that you wanted an amendment specifically to allow abortion in cases of FFA, rape/incest, danger to womens lives to just legislation on that.

Maybe a bit, ye. No-one suggested how that may be possible in the constitution. Ideally it would be, and not result in a mess. Then many uncomfortable with abortion on request / demand would be more inclined to vote to repeal (amend). Something it's been said that I've no interest in doing, but which isn't true.

thee glitz · 05-04-2018 11:21PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

Different wording, same thing.

I just believe they should have the choice to make the decision and if they decide to have a termination procure it in Ireland and hence repeal.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

05-04-2018 11:27PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Different wording, same thing.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Nope and unless you can provide evidence to state otherwise your just trying the usual plc ignore and deflect, but that's not going to wash in 2018

Sofiztikated · 05-04-2018 11:29PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Different wording, same thing.

It's not, but I don't have the energy to explain the difference to you.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Unrestricted access. Again, explaining the difference is not happening again.

05-04-2018 11:32PM

You also left out the part of my post where I said it none of my business or yours what decision a woman makes, why so? Do you believe it's your business or mine what decision a woman makes?

Annasopra · 05-04-2018 11:41PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Maybe a bit, ye. No-one suggested how that may be possible in the constitution. Ideally it would be, and not result in a mess. Then many uncomfortable with abortion on request / demand would be more inclined to vote to repeal (amend). Something it's been said that I've no interest in doing, but which isn't true.

Ok

So you can at least agree that the 8th needs to go because of the hard cases?

baylah17 · 05-04-2018 11:43PM

thee glitz wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote: »

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

Different wording, same thing.

I just believe they should have the choice to make the decision and if they decide to have a termination procure it in Ireland and hence repeal.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Same ****.e different day
Like a broken record with diorreha

thee glitz · 05-04-2018 11:48PM

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Those who are not pro-life (not pro forced-incubation) can clearly see that all pro-lifers (even the mildest) are misogynists (re: first trimester).

And then after 12 weeks are not necessarily misogynists? Clearly? All not pro-lifers? That's a lot of women you're including as misogynists.

One either believes that a woman has the rights of any citizen that have evolved over the past 1,000 years of history or you believe she becomes state property or a vessel who must be discriminated against and have important rights & protections stripped away from the moment a pregnancy test result comes in.

It is a binary thing; There is no wriggle room.

So why are you talking about the first trimester?

thee glitz · 05-04-2018 11:54PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ok

So you can at least agree that the 8th needs to go because of the hard cases?

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

baylah17 · 05-04-2018 11:56PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Those who are not pro-life (not pro forced-incubation) can clearly see that all pro-lifers (even the mildest) are misogynists (re: first trimester).

And then after 12 weeks are not necessarily misogynists? Clearly? All not pro-lifers? That's a lot of women you're including as misogynists.

One either believes that a woman has the rights of any citizen that have evolved over the past 1,000 years of history or you believe she becomes state property or a vessel who must be discriminated against and have important rights & protections stripped away from the moment a pregnancy test result comes in.

It is a binary thing; There is no wriggle room.

So why are you talking about the first trimester?

More attempts to deflect from the real issue
All this poster wants to do is muddy the waters 're potential future legislation when the actual issue is the repeal of the 8th amendment in the interest of the women of ireland
And all the time he's still wearing his " Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy" jumper
Don't let him deflect from the issue
Ignore him

06-04-2018 12:15AM

thee glitz wrote: »

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

Is this not the if you need?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

thee glitz · 06-04-2018 12:22AM

Simi wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

If the proposed legislation was stricter than it is ie. not allowing for abortion for no reason, but dependent on an assessment of reasonability...

An assessment of responsibility?
Are you suggesting we form tribunals to adjudicate how worthy a woman is of receiving medical care?

Reasonability. I understand many pro-choicers have difficulty with responsibilty. Not tribunals, but say 2 expert opinions.

What would be the level of proof a woman would need to provide to satisfy YOU that she is deserving of an abortion? Would women need to provide bank statements, character references, medical records, evidence of contraceptive use?

It wouldn't be up to me - I'm not an expert. That's some mad shoite you're on about there - character references etc?

No woman wakes up in the morning and decides 'oh I think I'll have an abortion today for no reason.' She has a reason and that's all that matters. She should never have to explain it or justify it to people like you.

Again, not to me. Are you also in the no-restrictions brigade?

captbarnacles · 06-04-2018 12:23AM

The handwringing over this from some of the male posters is kind of comical as they wrestle with their conscience whether to allow women access a procedure in Ireland that they currently do anyways in England or right here with ordered pills.

They don't even want the law enforced here!

I'll be honest, if this was a male issue I would pay zero heed to any females about it.

@theeglitz: in the interests of fairness for people who can't afford to travel would you let the government subsidize it?

Billy86 · 06-04-2018 12:34AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not everyone on the No side likes the most recent "License to kill" posters.

https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7/status/981829222925729792

Here it (or one of them) is https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ98ls6WsAAfH6a.jpg

Massive Attack did it first. Massive Attack did it better.

06-04-2018 12:59AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Here it (or one of them) is https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZ98ls6WsAAfH6a.jpg

Massive Attack did it first. Massive Attack did it better.

Didn't know MI-6 provided abortion services, good to know.

thee glitz · 06-04-2018 01:00AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

The handwringing over this from some of the male posters is kind of comical as they wrestle with their conscience whether to allow women access a procedure in Ireland that they currently do anyways in England or right here with ordered pills.

The numbers show that Irish women (or women giving Irish addresses) have abortions done in England or Wales in much lower numbers than women from there. The numbers claimed to take abortion pills here don't nowhere near make up the difference, not sure how they have stats on that admittedly.

@theeglitz: in the interests of fairness for people who can't afford to travel would you let the government subsidize it?

I personally couldn't stop it, but it must be possible to show that it would be a gross abuse of revenue unless for the case of an otherwise legal abortion not physically being possible here. I don't see it as an issue of fairness otherwise.

thee glitz · 06-04-2018 01:22AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

I find the hard cases to be, well, hard...

If required to prevent women dying, then it needs to go.

Is this not the if you need?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

Not a story in a paper, no. That's not grounds enough to remove the protection of life for all babies / foetuses / clump of cells (delete as required!).

But sure say it's definitive and the 8th needs to go to prevent a reoccurrence - offering a solution where the result is abortion on demand is not a proprtionate remedy.

thee glitz · 06-04-2018 01:31AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Different wording, same thing.

The appetite for unrestricted abortion law is a fair bit higher here than I previously thought.

Nope and unless you can provide evidence to state otherwise your just trying the usual plc ignore and deflect, but that's not going to wash in 2018

Nope to which/both? Ignore and deflect from what? That's a bit rich anyway unless you've already advised if you'd prioritise securing abortion availability where medically required over otherwise. Not that you'd be alone in that.

gctest50 · 06-04-2018 01:42AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Nope to which/both? Ignore and deflect from what? That's a bit rich anyway unless you've already advised if you'd prioritise securing abortion availability where medically required over otherwise. Not that you'd be alone in that.

Why protest so much when you don't even have a uterus ?

06-04-2018 01:42AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Not a story in a paper, no. That's not grounds enough to remove the protection of life for all babies / foetuses / clump of cells (delete as required!).

But sure say it's definitive and the 8th needs to go to prevent a reoccurrence - offering a solution where the result is abortion on demand is not a proprtionate remedy.

So you said if required to prevent women from dying it (the 8th) needs to go, your provided with one of the many articles regarding the how due to the 8th Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion that would have saved her life and suddenly no it's not a reason because it's just a story in a newspaper.

I'll say one thing about your posts they show how the pro life side say one thing and when shown evidence they deny it's evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda.

thee glitz · 06-04-2018 01:49AM

gctest50 wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Nope to which/both? Ignore and deflect from what? That's a bit rich anyway unless you've already advised if you'd prioritise securing abortion availability where medically required over otherwise. Not that you'd be alone in that.

Why protest so much when you don't even have a uterus ?

Concern for the protection of life of those threatened with being aborted. It would be more fitting to ask why those without a uterus are pro-choice.

06-04-2018 02:05AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Concern for the protection of life of those threatened with being aborted. It would be more fitting to ask why those without a uterus are pro-choice.

Maybe it's because we don't have a problem with women being equal and having a say in how they are treated medically?

thee glitz · 06-04-2018 02:15AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

So you said if required to prevent women from dying it (the 8th) needs to go, your provided with one of the many articles regarding the how due to the 8th Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion that would have saved her life and suddenly no it's not a reason because it's just a story in a newspaper.

I'm not going to take a story in a paper as evidence that having had an abortion done would have saved a woman's life, less so that a change in the law is necessary, much less again that a liberal regime is required.

Do you think the proposed legislation is no looser than required to prevent a reoccurrence?

I'll say one thing about your posts they show how the pro life side say one thing and when shown evidence they deny it's evidence because it doesn't suit your agenda.

'Evidence'. Are you convinced that the 8th needs to be repealed to prevent another Savita case, so pushing for the tightest legislation possible to ensure that it is, or for something else?

gctest50 · 06-04-2018 02:17AM

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not going to take a story in a paper .......

all about you

06-04-2018 02:41AM

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not going to take a story in a paper as evidence that having had an abortion done would have saved a woman's life, less so that a change in the law is necessary, much less again that a liberal regime is required.

Do you think the proposed legislation is no looser than required to prevent a reoccurrence?

'Evidence'. Are you convinced that the 8th needs to be repealed to prevent another Savita case, so pushing for the tightest legislation possible to ensure that it is, or for something else?

Your just strawmanning at this point.

pleas advice · 06-04-2018 02:41AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

I think the actual wording will be 'without specific indication' ...

Billy86 · 06-04-2018 03:06AM

Anecdotal stories about abortion don't interest the pro life crowd now it seems. That is genuinely funny.

volchitsa · 06-04-2018 06:44AM

thee glitz wrote: »

I'm not going to take a story in a paper as evidence that having had an abortion done would have saved a woman's life,

The man who chaired the investigation into her death says the same thing, so it has to be asked what evidence you would accept?

NuMarvel · 06-04-2018 06:44AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Maybe a bit, ye. No-one suggested how that may be possible in the constitution. Ideally it would be, and not result in a mess. Then many uncomfortable with abortion on request / demand would be more inclined to vote to repeal (amend). Something it's been said that I've no interest in doing, but which isn't true.

I think we've established in this and other threads that the reason no one has suggested how it may be possible in the constitution to provide for abortion on the grounds of FFA, rape, etc, is because it's not possible to do it properly. Plenty of posters have said it should be done this way, but no one's been able to say how it could be done properly.

The attorney general back in 1983 was dead set against the 8th amendment, because he could foresee it would cause more problems than it would solve. He knew that the constitution wasn't the right place to deal with the issue, and his recommended alternative, while not without its own problems, was much more straight forward and would have avoided many of the issues the 8th has created. This is just part of his legal advice at the time:

"The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."

I think trying to include grounds for complex issues like rape or FFA, would be equally "incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision." Which would explain why not a single politician or lawyer hasn't proposed something like this as an alternative.

Repeal really is the only way we can deal with these properly. And if people are opposed to some of the legislation that is proposed to follow afterwards, they can lobby politicians when it's being debated, and at every general election afterwards to get it changed.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments